Would big business not want a cure for cancer because the treatment brings in so much money?

In My Humble Opinion
61

No, no we are not.

I have a sister-in-law who has eaten for decades as Mercola preaches, not through believing any of his anti-scientific bullshit but just for general health, and is currently losing her battle with cancer. She has an insanely rare form of cancer that is impervious to most treatments as well as the multiple clinical trials that she has participated in. She has a very unlucky combination of rare cancer type plus her own genetics making her unsuitable for a particular treatment that may help. She is still fighting but at the worst she’s ever been.

So I am just deeply insulted that you are blithely yammering on about how Mercola is so smart and that he’s right about how the evil pharma companies just want to poison and impoverish everyone, when someone I love is dying and his “omg this is forbidden!!” diet plan that fucking everybody on the planet can find weekly in some fluffy women’s health magazine did exactly jack and shit to save her life. Because at least modern medicine has extended her life for about a decade now, allowed her time enough to see her child grow to adulthood, and for her to live a good, productive, otherwise healthy life. Swallowing his pricey supplements would have indirectly killed her back when her cancer first emerged.

I am utterly in horror that a supposedly educated person believes the nonsense that this amoral snakeoil peddler is selling, and we will both be wasting our time in continuing to try to convince the other. Goodbye.

62

Cite?

63

Please be prepared to discuss specifics when you return. Broad assertions of wrongdoing by unknown parties just isn’t cutting the mustard.

64

No, it doesn’t. And you seem to be jumping back and forth between consuming glucose and the body’s metabolism of food into glucose. As a result, this is kind of incoherent.

65

This is deeply ironic. Your mind is clearly made up.
Have you considered that perhaps, just perhaps, it is your ignorance that needs fighting?

Didn’t think so.

66

This is a very surprising turn of events in a thread of this type.

67

I came for the waters.

68

I’m sorry. What are you two arguing about? I thought it was pretty well established that things like excess glucose can contribute to getting cancer? Yes we need glucose to survive. We don’t need a 32 oz Tub-O-Coke twice a day’s worth. I don’t think there’s much of a secret there.

I find these “Big Business Conspiracy” arguments to be absurd anyway. Unlike Der Trihs, I don’t believe the corporate world is run by evil geniuses and psychopaths. I think it tends to be run by officious morons. If a cure for cancer hasn’t been found, it’s not because of some super secret cabal of big business interests is hiding it. It’s because they aren’t smart enough to come up with a cure any more than they are smart enough to come up with practical flying cars, jetpacks or cold fusion.

69

The ‘officious corporate morons’ are not the ones inventing the drugs.

70

Human beings are selfish, and this is one reason why medical researchers are vigorously pursuing/publishing research toward cures for cancer. Develop a cure, win the glory for yourself. Jonas Salk is enshrined forever in medical history as the man who invented the polio vaccine; Alexander Fleming, the man who invented penicillin. That’s a kind of immortality, and if you invent/discover the cure for cancer, your name will be in the books next to theirs.

And then there’s the profit motive. So you own a pharmaceutical company? Sure, you make major profits on the non-curative treatments, but only for as long as patents protect your monopoly. After that, the generics begin to compete, and you have to lower your prices into “reasonable” territory. (and yes, I realize “reasonable” is still outrageously expensive by most lay persons’ standards.)

But what if you devise a cure? Patent it, and you can sell it for far more than any non-curative treatment offered by any other pharmaceutical company. When the polio vaccine became available, I bet the iron lung industry shrank to a fraction of its peak size.

So for developing a cure, you’d make tons of money. At least until your patent ran out. Then you’re back to competing with everyone else on price, since everyone can make the cure. And then no one will make much money at all on non-curative treatments, since the cure is out there.

So at first blush, that looks like a motive for deliberately NOT producing the cure. But this is an unstable situation. If you don’t produce the cure, then someone else might come along and do so - and then all your lucrative non-curative treatments will be worthless. So it’s still in your best interests to pursue the cure, even if the windfall profits from it will only last a few years.

What about producing/patenting the cure, and then burying it in a file cabinet instead of marketing it? See above. If someone else comes along and produces it, then your company has one of two options:

A) engage in a very public patent dispute against the other company, revealing to the world that you’ve been sitting on the cure for years without making it available to the public. In other words, you’d be revealing your evil conspiracy, for which you’d suffer unbelievably bad publicity.

B) keep your conspiracy secret, and watch the other company rake in the profits while you grumble bitterly to yourself.

Either of those options assume that none of your employees would dare to go public with the news that your company is sitting on the cure for cancer. Good luck with that.

So would “big business” not want a cure for cancer? It’s entirely possible that each pharmaceutical company hopes that none of the others come up with a cure - but at the same time, any company that is not vigorously pursuing a cure is positively idiotic. The likelihood that no pharmaceutical companies are pursuing a cure - or that any company is pursuing a cure with the intention of burying it - is virtually zero.

71

But there are not “waters” here.

72

No, but the inventors of the drugs are part of the vast drug-making enterprise that is Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and so on.

I don’t think the board of directors sits around and decides “lets only make drugs to treat cancer, not cure it”. I think the economics of having to constantly find new drugs to sell means they need to keep coming up with incremental improvements over existing treatments. Not investing 30 years of research trying to hit it out of the park with a single cure which may never happen.
I don’t know much about this stuff from a technical point of view. But it’s my understanding that figuring out cancer is a heck of a lot more complex than coming up with vaccines to kill viruses. It’s only been relatively recently that scientists have started understanding enough about DNA and cellular chemistry and whatnot to even start investigating real cancer cures.

73

Ok, let me jump in here. Can you tell me what school you went to and when for your biology degree? Is there a particular professor that you respect their opinions on such matters?
Your position would be GREATLY enhanced if you brought their weight and influence into the discussion. The key here though, is that you have to respect their opinion…and not disregard it if it doesn’t agree with yours.

74

What about people who already have the diet and lifestyle that “cures” disease X, and they get disease X anyway?

75

Not so simple. Not only do different tumors have different mutations, causing different behavior; different cells in one tumor will have different mutations and those mutations will change over time. This is a good overview of what was found by using DNA analysis on tumors. Here are overviews of research being done treating cancer as an evolutionary disease. (Yes, I like Carl Zimmer.)

76

I was misinformed!

Thank you.

77

This is what happens when people take Chris Rock’s standup routines as gospel truth.

78

Bullet control is a better idea than this.

79

Dear god, where do they come from and how do they find us?

While there’s big money in prolonging and saving lives in treating cancer and other serious diseases, there’s also big money in promoting quackery and feeding suspicion of mainstream medicine. For instance, Quackwatch reports that Dr. Mercola bought a $2 million mansion with over 5,000 square feet in 2006. And he apparently still has lots of spare cash.

*"In 2011, Mercola announced the formation of Health Liberty, a nonprofit coalition whose goals include promoting organic foods and targeting fluoridation, vaccination, genetically modified foods, and the use of amalgam fillings [9]. In a video accompanying the announcement, Mercola stated that he planned to donate $1 million to catalyze the project. In addition to Mercola.com, The coalition members are:

National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which understates the benefits and exaggerates the risks of vaccination
Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the leading promoter of misinformation about fluoridation
Institute for Responsible Technology, which understates the benefits and exaggerates the risks of genetically modification of foods
Consumers for Dental Choice, which vigorously attacks amalgam use with misinformation, propaganda, lobbying, and lawsuits
Organic Consumers Association, which irresponsibly promotes unpasteurized milk and spreads false alarms about food irradiation, agricultural biotechnology, and vaccines."*

Mercola has promoted the work of Dr. Tullio Simoncini, who thinks cancer is a fungus (I am not kidding) and that ingesting bicarbonate is a cancer cure. That should provide a big hint as to Mercola’s credibility when it comes to cancer.

I am stunned by the brilliance of this observation. But a part of me wonders what the corporate world will do for profits if half their potential customers are dead.*

*Der Trihs’ remark is reminiscent of the ramblings of the people who tell us that vaccines are part of a Big Pharma world depopulation conspiracy. It never seems to occur to them that global genocide is a lousy business strategy.

80

A lot of the time they are… or at least a lot of the time the inventors are the ones who run the company. Over 3/4ths of US biotech companies have < 50 employees. Many of them are a few scientists with an idea who find some investors and go all in on some narrowly focused research. They’re not evil and they’re not morons and the implication that they are is really offensive.